05-10-2015, 11:50 AM
As I understand (not much as not a lawyer) the US constitutional reference to the right to bear arms and a well regulated militia I don't see the problem with people being registered for a militia and the arms being stored in a armoury (manned and secured by appropriate personnel) to which the militia person can have access to their arms by signing in and out for them.
You get:
arms off the street
arms out of homes
less domestic violence especially of a lethal type
less businesses being robbed
less mass shootings
less accidental shootings
Gun owners still get to own guns and be in a militia as intended. To be in a militia there have to be mental health checks.
Amnesty to get it rolling and any gun found outside an armoury will be confiscated and destroyed.
Exceptions for some farmers to have one on the farm for vermin and foxes etc to protect livestock.
You get:
arms off the street
arms out of homes
less domestic violence especially of a lethal type
less businesses being robbed
less mass shootings
less accidental shootings
Gun owners still get to own guns and be in a militia as intended. To be in a militia there have to be mental health checks.
Amnesty to get it rolling and any gun found outside an armoury will be confiscated and destroyed.
Exceptions for some farmers to have one on the farm for vermin and foxes etc to protect livestock.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.